Forums

I will miss Old Warrior/Iguana Topic

ill give you a better example. i figured the last was good because most military folks are pretty serious about 2nd amendment rights, but not being a real example, i suppose thats not ideal (although australia did really do it). a decade or maybe more ago, the US dept of justice ruled that auto recyclers (junk yards) had to turn in the VINs of vehicles as they crushed them or sold them off to crushers, to monitor the end of life process and make sure extinct VINs werent re-used to re-identify stolen vehicles.

well, for many years, the DOJ had a rule in place saying EVERY auto recycler MUST turn these in. but there was no system to turn them in, no auto recyclers followed the rule. none. how could you? mail them a list? it was ridiculous. several years later, some group sued the DOJ to force them to enforce the rule, so they did. they had a hard deadline for enforcement, **but there was still no system**. so they just did nothing, effectively, breaking the judges ruling, but nobody pushed the issue as they were sort of trying. eventually there was a system which allowed *some* auto recyclers to start reporting. but they didnt all start because the whole thing was a total piece of **** from the start, there was NO CREDIBILITY. thats the key. after another year or so, a system was in place for all auto recyclers to use, and the DOJ said ok, for real now guys, you have to report, and a lot of people did. probably most did within a year but its hard to say for sure.

anyway, do you fault those auto recyclers who didnt report for 8 years without a system to do so? that is slightly different, there at least was a way to follow the rules if you wanted in HD. but when the ****** system came online that only partly worked for some people, who were super busy, and it still had all these bugs and was a huge pain in the ***... do you really fault them for taking their time to start reporting? once the system was credible, they followed. i think that pretty much demonstrates the problem was the system, not the auto recyclers. this situation is almost identical. if seble came out and had said hey, this is really important, heres how we manage the people with problems, maybe you get 4 seasons to wrap up and then you get help moving or whatever, and really gave a system with low credibility some real credibility, i think most people would have followed it. i argue that in both cases, the problem is the system, not the people.

There are all sorts of examples of grandfathering people in. Building codes, drinking laws, etc.

The problem was that even when they changed the rule, there was always an unspoken/unwritten rule that those who currently had teams could stay where they were. That's why no one said anything for a year or so after they changed it. It was only when new coaches came in ******** about it - not understanding the history behind it - that seble did anything.

Of course, this was bullshit, because the only people harmed were long-time vets who were open about their aliases because they believed they were complying with the rules. The ones who knew they were breaking the rules are still getting away with it.

Posted by isack24 on 5/24/2013 7:52:00 PM (view original):There are all sorts of examples of grandfathering people in. Building codes, drinking laws, etc.

The problem was that even when they changed the rule, there was always an unspoken/unwritten rule that those who currently had teams could stay where they were. That's why no one said anything for a year or so after they changed it. It was only when new coaches came in ******** about it - not understanding the history behind it - that seble did anything.

Of course, this was bullshit, because the only people harmed were long-time vets who were open about their aliases because they believed they were complying with the rules. The ones who knew they were breaking the rules are still getting away with it.

Posted by tedlukacs on 5/24/2013 5:32:00 PM (view original):Stinenavy--a rather flawed analogy. How about a real life analogy? Years ago, it was OK for a District of Columbia cop to live in suburban Maryland--where there was more affordable housing, better schools, safer neighborhoods, etc. Large amounts of people joined the DC force when it was OK to live in Md, so they did. Then the DC Council decided, well, DC cops should live in DC. Instead of grandfathering in the ones that had joined when it was OK, they said, move to DC or lose your job. Now, they had their addresses on record, so enforcement was no problem. But suppose they didn't, and they depended on fellow officers to rat them out? These cops had joined the DC force when it was OK to live in Md; the new regs were not being enforced unless someone ratted out a fellow officer. Is that really any different from what happened in HD? HD depends on people to rat out their fellow coaches. Just great! So go ahead, be sanctimonious if you wish.
TL

Posted by stinenavy on 5/24/2013 6:36:00 PM (view original):Flawed? There's no instances of an area in which the police didn't enforce a speed limit, suddenly enforce the speed limit by giving out tickets?

Emy, feel free to post your tickets from when the 1000 mile rule took effect, and great to here you knowingly were breaking the 1000 mile rule for almost a year. How honorable of you. At least billy_g claimed ignorance.

I have no need to post my tickets here to appease you Mr. Navy. Just like when you told everyone to report "violators" to you so you could do them in, I'm not going to make anything easy for you. Frankly, it's NONE of YOUR business what MY tickets to CS said. As a matter of fact, I think my answer to you about posting my tickets would be to mind your own f$&%$#* business. Instead you want to play HD hall monitor. Sadly, the world does NOT revolve around you. What an arrogant p&#$%. Did you get picked on a lot when you were a kid?

1 Definition of CHEAT (from Merrim-Webster):

That is what I mean by saying that teams w/in 1000 miles is cheating. I am not saying that person is specifically USING the information inappropriately.

I am saying that if there are rules, and if one does not follow the rules, then that (by itself, with no other action) is ... by definition, cheating.

In a game where people pay to play, no one player should be able to gain advantage over another coach by "cheating".

Whether or not the information is used inappropriately by the other player, it is still an unfair advantage. Here is an example.

Three teams in the same Division 3 world ... Team A, Team B, Team C. Two coaches, Coach A and Coach B. Coach A is the coach of Team A and Team C (Team C is under an Alias) ... Coach B is the coach of Team B. Team A and Team C are 700 miles apart. Coach B does not KNOW that Team C is being coached by Team A's coach under an alias, he just sees 2 different coaches named for Team A and Team C and thinks they are 2 separate coaches.

Recruit A (an SF) is 350 miles from Team A and Team C (so in the middle between those teams) ... he is also 350 miles from Team B. The coaches are all equal in prestige. Coach A wants to take Recruit A with Team C. Coach B wants Recruit A as well ... BUT ... seeing that Team A and Team C BOTH need an SF, Coach B decides to look elsewhere because he doesn't want to risk that both Team A and Team C might battle for Recruit A.

In the above example, Coach A has an advantage over Coach B because he knows for sure that Team A (under his alias) is not going to spend any money on Recruit A. Coach A did NOTHING wrong to obtain the advantage. He did not scout the state with Team A ... he did not spend any money scouting Recruit A with Team A to get knowledge he should not have, etc. However, he still had an advantage that no other coach could possibly have ... he knew two things about Team A that no other coach within 360 miles of Recruit A could possibly know. He knew that Team A did NOT spend FSS money in the state in which Recruit A resides. He also knows with 100% certainty that Team A is not going to spend any cash on Recruit A even though Team A needs an SF. He also knows that not only is Team A not taking Recruit A ... Team A is not even recruiting anyone inside Recruit A's state because Coach A does not ever take recruits in the same state that he buys FSS for from Team C.

Now, if Team C had a third coach (lets call him Coach C) that was not an alias of Coach A ... the ONLY way that Coach C would be able to know that Coach A was not recruiting Recruit A (or anyone in Recruit A's state) would be for Coach A and Coach C to make an agreement that Coach C could recruit Recruit A and that Coach A would back off. They would also make an agreement that Coach C could have all the recruits in Recruit A's state while Coach A would focus on the recruits in a neighboring state. For separate Coaches at Team A and Team C to have the same knowledge that Coach A (and his alias) have about "Recruit A" and Recruit A's state, they would have to have an illegal agreement that would clearly be a violation of the Fair Play guidelines.

So Coach A says in the forums ... I never share information between Teams A and C ... and he actually isn't. Coach A is a good person and would never, ever "CHEAT". He still has an advantage over Coach B and every other coach who does not know that Team A is not recruiting Recruit A or inside Recruit A's state. Is that advantage going to ensure that Coach A wins multiple championships and relegate Coach B to a sub .500 career ... of course not. However, Coach A and Coach B are not on a level playing field and in a game where people pay to play, all players should be on a level playing field.

I too believe in enforcing the rule, and I, like kujayhawk, remember that older thread and I was surprised and appalled that ow signed that kid with his D 1 team away from a conference mate of his D 2 team. That said hughesjr, I feel compelled to dispute something you've just posted.

1 Definition of CHEAT (from Merrim-Webster):

to violate rules dishonestly

-----------------------------------------

I am saying that if there are rules, and if one does not follow the rules, then that (by itself, with no other action) is ... by definition, cheating.

According to the definition that you yourself lead with, one not following the rules is not (by itself, with no other action) cheating, as your definition clearly states that cheating is violating rules dishonestly. The mere act of breaking the rule is not, itself, enough if I read correctly, without establishing dishonesty...

Posted by isack24 on 5/24/2013 7:52:00 PM (view original):There are all sorts of examples of grandfathering people in. Building codes, drinking laws, etc.

The problem was that even when they changed the rule, there was always an unspoken/unwritten rule that those who currently had teams could stay where they were. That's why no one said anything for a year or so after they changed it. It was only when new coaches came in ******** about it - not understanding the history behind it - that seble did anything.

Of course, this was bullshit, because the only people harmed were long-time vets who were open about their aliases because they believed they were complying with the rules. The ones who knew they were breaking the rules are still getting away with it.

This about sums it up.

yeah, it really does... every division in every world has "offenders", but as long as the people have the illusion CS is enforcing the rules, i suppose they are happy, huh? the only reason this hasnt become such a big issue is because 95% of coaches dont really give a **** (or there would be massively more people reported), its misleading/silly the active forum population is split 50/50 or so, but its just because 90% of people dont care enough either way to get involved. just like with special interest groups today, the people who find a way to see things in black and white just exhaust everyone else until people give them what they want just to shut them up.

Posted by dacj501 on 5/25/2013 7:51:00 AM (view original):I too believe in enforcing the rule, and I, like kujayhawk, remember that older thread and I was surprised and appalled that ow signed that kid with his D 1 team away from a conference mate of his D 2 team. That said hughesjr, I feel compelled to dispute something you've just posted.

1 Definition of CHEAT (from Merrim-Webster):

to violate rules dishonestly

-----------------------------------------

I am saying that if there are rules, and if one does not follow the rules, then that (by itself, with no other action) is ... by definition, cheating.

According to the definition that you yourself lead with, one not following the rules is not (by itself, with no other action) cheating, as your definition clearly states that cheating is violating rules dishonestly. The mere act of breaking the rule is not, itself, enough if I read correctly, without establishing dishonesty...

Straight from the webster's website -

transitive verb

1

: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

2

: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

3

: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>

intransitive verb

1

a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

2

: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <wascheating on his wife>

3

: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>

Thought maybe someone should post the entire definition and not hughes' version.

Posted by stinenavy on 5/24/2013 6:36:00 PM (view original):Flawed? There's no instances of an area in which the police didn't enforce a speed limit, suddenly enforce the speed limit by giving out tickets?

Emy, feel free to post your tickets from when the 1000 mile rule took effect, and great to here you knowingly were breaking the 1000 mile rule for almost a year. How honorable of you. At least billy_g claimed ignorance.

I have no need to post my tickets here to appease you Mr. Navy. Just like when you told everyone to report "violators" to you so you could do them in, I'm not going to make anything easy for you. Frankly, it's NONE of YOUR business what MY tickets to CS said. As a matter of fact, I think my answer to you about posting my tickets would be to mind your own f$&%$#* business. Instead you want to play HD hall monitor. Sadly, the world does NOT revolve around you. What an arrogant p&#$%. Did you get picked on a lot when you were a kid?

By the way, it's spelled "hear", Einstein.

I called you out on the support ticket because I think you're lying about you submitting a ticket when the fair play guidelines were updated. You being all uppity and refusing to post the ticket about it confirms to me that you are lying. Either that or you think the rules shouldn't apply to you, so you kept yourself in violation for almost a year.

I'm not a fan of liars or cheaters and you appear to be both, on an online simulation basketball game. You must be proud of yourself.

The fair play guidelines have two rules for HD. 1) Don't have teams within 1000 miles of each other 2) Don't collude.

Stine, I wouldn't give you a lick of information on anything either...you ratted out billyg because of a forum post...emy's smart to keep his cards close to his chest...you know you just want to comb through those tickets/sitemails/etc so you can find something amiss.

Also, I'm willing to bet that you don't have any friends that do/possess illegal drugs, because they would all be in jail too by your doing, right?

Posted by stinenavy on 5/24/2013 6:36:00 PM (view original):Flawed? There's no instances of an area in which the police didn't enforce a speed limit, suddenly enforce the speed limit by giving out tickets?

Emy, feel free to post your tickets from when the 1000 mile rule took effect, and great to here you knowingly were breaking the 1000 mile rule for almost a year. How honorable of you. At least billy_g claimed ignorance.

I have no need to post my tickets here to appease you Mr. Navy. Just like when you told everyone to report "violators" to you so you could do them in, I'm not going to make anything easy for you. Frankly, it's NONE of YOUR business what MY tickets to CS said. As a matter of fact, I think my answer to you about posting my tickets would be to mind your own f$&%$#* business. Instead you want to play HD hall monitor. Sadly, the world does NOT revolve around you. What an arrogant p&#$%. Did you get picked on a lot when you were a kid?

By the way, it's spelled "hear", Einstein.

I called you out on the support ticket because I think you're lying about you submitting a ticket when the fair play guidelines were updated. You being all uppity and refusing to post the ticket about it confirms to me that you are lying. Either that or you think the rules shouldn't apply to you, so you kept yourself in violation for almost a year.

I'm not a fan of liars or cheaters and you appear to be both, on an online simulation basketball game. You must be proud of yourself.

The fair play guidelines have two rules for HD. 1) Don't have teams within 1000 miles of each other 2) Don't collude.

I would think people can follow two rules. I'm wrong apparently.

Well then, I guess it's a good thing I give less than a rat's *** what you think about my having sent CS tickets. I couldn't really care less if the great Stinenavy thinks I'm a liar or not. And you should really think about what you said about the online basketball game and ask yourself this, why are YOU taking it so seriously? Why are YOU playing HD policeman?

Colonels is eons ahead of you in the smarts department for sure. Why would I post all my tickets here so you can comb through them and try to cherrypick any little bits of info you want? Man, you really live in a sheltered world, huh?

Oh, and if you don't think collusion happens, then yes, you are wrong about people not following two rules. In fact, collusion is a FAR worse problem than multiple teams. Can't wait to see you try to police THAT.

Posted by dacj501 on 5/25/2013 7:51:00 AM (view original):I too believe in enforcing the rule, and I, like kujayhawk, remember that older thread and I was surprised and appalled that ow signed that kid with his D 1 team away from a conference mate of his D 2 team. That said hughesjr, I feel compelled to dispute something you've just posted.

1 Definition of CHEAT (from Merrim-Webster):

to violate rules dishonestly

-----------------------------------------

I am saying that if there are rules, and if one does not follow the rules, then that (by itself, with no other action) is ... by definition, cheating.

According to the definition that you yourself lead with, one not following the rules is not (by itself, with no other action) cheating, as your definition clearly states that cheating is violating rules dishonestly. The mere act of breaking the rule is not, itself, enough if I read correctly, without establishing dishonesty...

Straight from the webster's website -

transitive verb

1

: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

2

: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

3

: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>

intransitive verb

1

a: to practice fraud or trickery b: to violate rules dishonestly <cheat at cards> <cheating on a test>

2

: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on <wascheating on his wife>

3

: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area <the shortstop was cheating toward second base>

Thought maybe someone should post the entire definition and not hughes' version.

Is it not dishonest to own two teams within 1000 miles and pretend that you aren't? One agrees to the fair play guidelines, then takes two teams within 1000 miles. Is it not dishonest to purposefully violate the rules. Is it not defrauding other customers (and deceitful) when you gain advantage buy taking two teams within 1000 miles.

And is my example not one of an advantage to someone, even if trying in every way not to actually cheat, but still being collusive between the 2 teams?